[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
Hi Izumi,
On 16/02/2009, at 10:40 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
These were major requests from routing/packeting concerns.
1. To have a system that allows a third party to confirm
"authenticity" of address space. (prove you are the right holder)
A third party may mean an upsteam ISP, or to get internal approval
by non-tech people within an organization to obtain IPv4 resource
Resource Certificate may provide an answer to the first needs, but
may be more studies are required for proving it to non-tech people.
My reading of this, and do correct me if I'm wrong, is the underlying
question of:
"What, if any, tools are available that allows my non-technical people
to verify that a new/existing customer has this 'new' prefix for which
they are asking me to route?"
yes?
2.Information from APNIC to help confirm the "cleaness" of address
Records on the past holders of the address space (not only the
previous, but all past holders by date) would help at the time of
obtaining the resource/trouble shooting for transfered space.
The public log defined in prop-050 is probably quite good overall
to
but hope we can review more on other information which may be
required.
"cleaness" is interesting. I see the value in the immediately previous
details, however due to the business climate and the way organisations
are sold/bought/wound-up I suspect that the information used for
trouble shooting, such as calling a 'long-ago' holder to get their
upstream to change a filter, may not be all that useful due to ageing
of details.
They may sound more like operational details rather than policies, but
operators here feel it's quite important that we have them ready
before
implmenting this policy for the transfer policy to be work in real
life.
I think bring forward operational realities is important. Any policy
in the internet space that forgets the operational truths is at risk
of being half-baked.
i'll stop here for today...but I'll have to spam some more
tomorrow :-P
:-)
I don't consider this spam.
Terry
